[The Seven by Nine Squares home page]
[Art Strike 1990-1993]
"The whole point is that life during the strike is going to be more
creative, not less."
(One Woman's Viewpoint Regarding Art Strike 1990-1993)
Conceding many of the points in YAWN (particularly those self-evidentiary), and most assuredly acknowledging the pompousness contained in the genetic code of artists, both past present and future, and being aware of the general relevance/irrelevance of all art (depending on who does it, who sees it, who critiques it, who throws up on it, etc.), OWVRAS90-93 would like to brashly put forth another possibility. (After all, this isn't 1990 yet, despite what many of us believe to the contrary). Therefore, there is still time to promote another way of going about this whole business of trying to determine the role of (if there is one) creativity in any society (much less today's), and whether or not creativity (i.e., art? [unsure]) has any potential for anything, such as ideas to save the world, or to promote art outside of history and thus if it solves anything, not to get the credit for so doing. Thus, it struck this woman (yes) that instead of Art Strike 1990-1993, there should be Forced Art Participation 1990-2001. Still basically undefined, FAP (even the acronym has a kind of strong sound [i.e., empowering] about it) would mean that people would not ditch their tvs, but instead have to write their own shows. On any given night, people showing up at a Royal Shakespeare (or other) production would have to bring substitute scripts and be prepared to play a role or two. And so it would go. People couldn't just go to a Stones concert, they would have to bring their own lyrics, melodies or whatever (some might be interested in playing the air guitar a la Mick Jagger), and participate in the event itself. This means that there would be no admission charges to anything, and thus capitalism's head (ugly to some, not to others), would be removed from the `scene' (art, in this case). Voila! Overnight the profit motive would be gone. Art would no longer be money. All artists, which would be everyone, would be sharing equally in the non-return so everyone, i.e., all artists, would be equally poor and suffering. And when famine was a true communal experience, art (through artists?) would perhaps save the day with some creative response. But we would have to stay on our guard, etc.
One Woman's reaction to the response
One Woman's Apology